BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 30th day of April, 2009
C.C.No. 178/08
Between:
S.Venkatrao,
S/o. S. Hanumantha Rao,
Retired Attender in Chief Executive Engineer,
Z.P.Kurnool residing at H.No.8/11/76, & B,
Chowdeswari Nagar,
Opp.LTC. Company,
Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool – 518 002. .. Complainant
Versus
1.The Chief Executive Engineer,
Panchayat Raj, R.W.S.Division,
D.No.40/32-SB,
Zilla Praja Parishad Compound,
Ward No.43,
Kurnool – 518001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Praja Parishad, D.No.40/32-SB,
Z.P.P.Compound,
Kurnool – 518 001.
3. The Accountant General ( A.E.E),
Office of the Accountant General ,
D.No.6-1-84 & 86, Saifabad,
Hyderabad – 500 004. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the
presence of Sri. G.Naga Raju , Advocate, for the complainant, and Smt.
A.Uma Devi, Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1
and 3 called absent set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on
record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.178/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 and 14
of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund the
wrongly deducted amount of Rs.15,000/- , Rs.2,000/- as cost of the
compliant, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and any other
relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the
case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant is
a retired attendar in opposite party No.1 office and during his service he
obtained a housing loan of Rs.23,000/- and the said loan is to be recovered
from his salary at Rs.460/- per month and to be credited to general fund of
Zilla Praja Parishad of 8448 . On retirement the opposite parties deducted
Rs.15,000/- from the retirement benefits as the complainant did not
credited to the loan amount. On personal verification the complainant found
that there are no entries to the loan account of the complainant and the
amount of Rs.14,492/- was credited to wrong loan account and inspite of
several requests the opposite parties did not refund the wrongly recovered
amount of Rs.15,000/- . The complainant being vexed addressed a letter
dated 24-04-2006 to the opposite parties to which the opposite parties
replied dated 24-02-2007 . Hence resorted to the forum for reliefs as there
is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties .
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following
documents viz., (1) office copy of representation dated 23-04-2006 of
complainant to opposite party No. 1 marking copy to opposite party No. 1
marking copy to opposite party No. 2 , (2) postal acknowledgement of
opposite party No. 1, (3) postal acknowledgement of opposite party No. 2 ,
(4) letter dated 05-02-2007 of opposite party No. 2 to oppsotie party No. 3,
Accountant General , Hyderabad, (5) letter dated 02-11-2006 of opposite
party No. 2 to opposite party No. 3, Accountant General , Hyderabad, (6)
letter dated 20-04-2007 of opposite party No. 3 to Executiave Engineer,
RWS , Division , Kurnool, (7) xerox copy of due certificate dated 24-07-
1998 issued by Chief Executive Officer ( opposite party No. 2) , Zilla
Parishad, Kurnool , (8) xerox copy of letter dated 22-07-2002 of Deputy

Director, DTO, Kurnool ,besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in
reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are
marked as Ex.A1 to A8 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the
interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the
complainant , the opposite parties 1 and 3 remained absent throughout the
case proceedings and were made ex-parte . The opposite party No. 2
contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No. 2 denies the complaint as
not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the complainant
S.Venkata Rao , Attender has obtained in Zilla Praja Parishad , a HBL
advance of Rs.65,000/- was sanctioned and an amount of Rs.23,000/- was
released to the complainant , as the complainant failed to submit UCs for
sanctioned amount within stipulated time ,the released sanctioned amount
may be recovered duly fixing the installments of Rs.460/- per month for 50
installments . Subsequently , the complainant was transferred to EEPR No.
II ,Kurnool on 26-12-1994 and LPC of the complainant was also issued
indicating the balance HPL recovery particulars and requested to remit
Rs.460/- towards loan amount to Zilla Parishad loan fund head office of
account 84448 /109/03/006 of 29 remaining installments. Accordingly
Drawing & Disbursing Officer ,i.e, Executive Engineer, RWS , Kurnool has
recovered 11 installments i.e, Rs.5,060/- from the complainants salary out
of 29 installments . The remaining 18 installments of Rs.8,280/- were not
adjusted to the Zilla Parishad loan fund by the Executive Engineer ,RWS ,
Kurnool by the time of complainants superannuation and the same was
miscredited to the account to MM 7610 instead of MM 8448. A s the
complainant was pending 18 installments and penal interest at 11.25 was
calculated and an amount of Rs.19,595/- has been recovered from the
complainants pentionary benefits and the same was remitted to the loan
fund of account. The opposite party No. 2 has not recovered any excess
amount in respect of HBL amount pertaining to the complainant and the
opposite party No. 1 requested opposite party No. 3 to rectify the defect
and to issued alteration memo for RS.14,492/- but so far the said amount
is not credited to 8448 head of account and it is the opposite party No. 1
who is responsible for the above lapses and requests for dismissal of
compliant with costs.

6. In support of their case the opposite party No. 2 relied on the
following document (1) letter dated 09-07-1998 of complainant to opposite
party No.2 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in
reiteration of i t s written version averments and the above document i s
marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the
interrogatories exhcanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant
is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
8. It is the case of the complainant that he obtained a housing loan of
Rs.23,000/- from opposite party No. 2 and the said loan is to be recovered
from the complainants salary in 50 installments at Rs.460/- per month and
to be credited to general fund of Zilla Praja Parishad Account of 8448 .
Subsequently , the complainant was transferred to opposite party No. 1
office and the LPC of the complainant was also issued by opposite party
No. 2 indicating the opposite party No. 1 to recovery the remaining 29
installments @ Rs.450/- per month and credit to Zilla Parishad loan fund
head of account 8448 . The opposite party No. 2 in para 8 of its written
version averments submitted that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer ie.,
Executive Engineer , RWS , Kurnool ( opposite party No.1) has recovered
11 installments ( i.e, Rs.460/- X 11 = 5,060) and credit to A/c.No.8448 .
The remaining 18 installments amount of Rs.8,280/- were not adjusted to
A/c.8448 and the opposite party No. 1 miscredited the same to A/c.7610
instead of A/c 8448.
9. The opposite party No.2 f u r t h e r submitted that as the 18
installments amount of the complainant the were not credited to A/c.8448 ,
the opposite party No. 2 calculated the pending 18 installments with penal
interest @ 11.25% totaling Rs.19,595/- and recovered the said amount
from the complainants pensionary benefits of the complainant .
10. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer of opposite party No. 1 who
wrongly miscredited the 18 installments of complainant remained absent
through out the case proceedings , hence there is no rebuttal to the above
allegations of opposite party No. 2. Hence , the above allegations remained
as proved.

11. The complainant in this case submitted that the opposite party
No. 2 wrongly recovered Rs.15,000/- f rom his pensionary benefits, even
though installments amount was recovered from his salary. It is the
opposite party No. 1 who recovered the 18 installments of Rs.460/- per
month from complainants salary and wrongly credited to A/c.7610 and the
said opposite party No. 1 is at fault, and for the said fault of opposite party
No. 1 , the complainant cannot be put to loss. Hence, it is for opposite
party No. 1 who has to make good the loss suffered by the complainant .
12. To sum up , it i s the opposite party No. 1 who wrongly
miscredited the 18 installments to A/c.7610 instead of A/c 8448 and no
endeavour appears to be made by opposite party No. 1 to recover the said
amount and remit back to the complainant , even after filling of this case.
Hence , there appears clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party
No. 1. Therefore , it is the opposite party No. 1 , who has to pay the said
miscredited amount wrongly deducted from the pensionary benefits of the
complainant .
13. The opposite party No.2 in para No. 8 of its written version
averments s u b m i t s that they have deducted Rs.19,595/- from the
complainants pensionary benefits , as18 installments of Rs.460/- per month
were not credited to its loan A/c.8448 . As the complainant limited his claim
to Rs.15,000/- , the claim for Rs.15,000/- is awarded. The above said
lapsive conduct of opposite party No. 1 not only caused mental agony to
the complainant but also constrained the complainant to seek redressal in
this forum. Hence an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards
compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs. As no case is
made out against opposite parties 2 and 3 , case against opposite party No.
2 and 3 is dismissed.
14. In the result , the complaint is dismissed against opposite parties
2 an 3 and allowed against opposite party No. 1 only , directing opposite
party No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- towards the amount
deducted from pensionary benefits of the complainant along with
Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs
within one month form the date of receipt of this order. In default, the

opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay the supra award with 12% interest
from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of April, 2009
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Office copy of representation date d 2 3 -04-2006 of
complainant to opposite party No. 1 marking copy to
opposite party No. 2.
Ex.A2. Postal acknowledgement of opposite party No. 1.
Ex.A3. Postal acknowledgement of opposite party No. 2
Ex.A4. Letter dated 05-02-2007 of opposite party No. 2 to opposite
party No. 3, Accountant General , Hyderabad
Ex.A5. Letter dated 02-11-2006 of opposite party No. 2 to opposite
party No. 3, Accountant General , Hyderabad
Ex.A6. Letter dated 20-04-2007 of opposite party No. 3 to
Executive Engineer, RWS , Division , Kurnool
ExA7. Xerox copy of due certificate dated 24-07-1998 issued by
Chief Executive Officer ( opposite party No. 2) , Zilla
Parishad, Kurnool .
Ex.A8. Xerox copy of letter dated 22-07-2002 of Deputy Director,
DTO, Kurnool

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Letter dated 09-07-1998 of complainant to opposite party
No. 2
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :